Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#41

Post by barry-cotter »

9dev wrote: post #22
rapsey wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can take examples of working systems and adapt what works and discard what doesn't. Europe has spent decades and trillions on programs that do not work and produce nothing but word documents. With no sign of anyone acknowledging the poor results of these programs. Since I can't post on this thread anymore I will edit. I am talking about what this thread is about. Misguided and poorly designed industrial developme…

Now that’s just hyperbole, and factually wrong, too. The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace, establish the worlds largest single market, enabled free trade, allowed citizens to move, live, and even work in any member state; it implemented regulation that makes food, drinks, and products some of the safest to consume and use on earth; it devised standards that are g…

> The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace

You misspelled NATO.

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#42

Post by trothamel »

maxglute wrote: post #40
perihelions wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a large number of very well-capitalized startups in China trying to build reusable rockets, in competition to SpaceX. It's a significant national security priority for them. I'm pretty sure one of them will succeed soon. I don't understand your argument why they must all fail—I'm not clear if you've articulated such an argument, really, beyond "many people have failed, so it's probably impossible". But SpaceX…

Basically. Last year spaceX had fleet of 18 F9s doing more than 50% of global launches, 80% including starlink. SpaceX stans wank over 50% and 80%, but ignore that 18 is rookie numbers. 7/145 US space launches in 2024 was Non SpaceX. That means US in aggregate build 25 rockets. Versus PRC 68 (wanted 100 which was kind of reach). Next 5-10 year projection need to account for # launch vehicles once PRC figures out reus…

Note that each of the 138 SpaceX launches required producing a second stage, something your numbers aren't really accounting for.

And that it seems like SpaceX is close (within a year or so) to full reusability, while rivals are still trying to work out how to reuse the first stage.

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#43

Post by 9dev »

barry-cotter wrote: post #41
9dev wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that’s just hyperbole, and factually wrong, too. The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace, establish the worlds largest single market, enabled free trade, allowed citizens to move, live, and even work in any member state; it implemented regulation that makes food, drinks, and products some of the safest to consume and use on earth; it devised standards that are g…

> The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace You misspelled NATO.

No, I didn’t. The EU contributed a lot to a stable Europe after the war, and having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe.

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#44

Post by barry-cotter »

9dev wrote: post #43
barry-cotter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The EU has managed amazingly much over its existence. After WW II, it managed to keep peace You misspelled NATO.

No, I didn’t. The EU contributed a lot to a stable Europe after the war, and having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe.

> having tight diplomatic relations and economic bonds was paramount to avoid conflicts within Europe.

The diplomatic and economic bonds between the belligerents of WW1 and WW2 were very close indeed before war broke out. The post WW2 peace in Western Europe was a function of the fact that NATO did its job “Keep the Russians out, the French in and the Germans down.”

If tight economic and other links prevented war there would still bebe a country called Yugoslavia. You need either actual broad based buy in or an imperial power willing to stop people who would like to go to war from doing so. NATO keeps Bosnia-Herzegovina from collapsing and as soon as they stop it’s done. No doubt there are other obvious examples in Europe, and it’s not as if anyone thinks NATO means much without the US.

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#45

Post by Teever »

verzali wrote: post #39
perihelions wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- "they should dictate to the companies how they want to approach the problem" No; I mean they should define the problem they need solved. If they're too unfocused to define that problem as "mass-produced reusable rockets", that's a strong signal they've already lost. There's a dozen newspace startups pursuing reusability, and it's Europe's loss that none of them are in Europe.

No, the problem should be "find a way to launch x tons for If mass produced reusable rockets are the best solution then companies will propose that.

Do you actually think that there are any viable alternatives to reusable rockets as a solution to this problem?

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#46

Post by maxglute »

trothamel wrote: post #42
maxglute wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically. Last year spaceX had fleet of 18 F9s doing more than 50% of global launches, 80% including starlink. SpaceX stans wank over 50% and 80%, but ignore that 18 is rookie numbers. 7/145 US space launches in 2024 was Non SpaceX. That means US in aggregate build 25 rockets. Versus PRC 68 (wanted 100 which was kind of reach). Next 5-10 year projection need to account for # launch vehicles once PRC figures out reus…

Note that each of the 138 SpaceX launches required producing a second stage, something your numbers aren't really accounting for. And that it seems like SpaceX is close (within a year or so) to full reusability, while rivals are still trying to work out how to reuse the first stage.

2nd stage 1/6 weight with simple merlin engine. Early F9 used 9 merlin = ~15 more rockets. ~60% of PRC though we don't know full industrial capacity of either, i.e. SpaceX could be boeing tier and do 600+ frames per year, or PRC can brrt their reusable like shipbuilding at 200x whatever US is per year. I think Starship is big caveate, it could work or it could not. It's much more complicated / not conservative project vs F9 and has borderline Vanguard / Atlas tier failure rate granted one could argue that's move fast break things by design. But push comes to shove, comes to hammering industry to fill strategic need, I wouldn't be confident SpaceX can maintain lead for long enough to matter. Especially if space weaponization on the horizon.

Re: ESA has a commercial launch strategy, but will member states pay?

#47

Post by verzali »

Teever wrote: post #45
verzali wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem should be "find a way to launch x tons for If mass produced reusable rockets are the best solution then companies will propose that.

Do you actually think that there are any viable alternatives to reusable rockets as a solution to this problem?

There could be? People are smart, maybe someone would come up with a viable approach. Point is, if reusable rockets are the only viable approach, then everyone will use that approach to meet the requirement.
Post reply on HN